- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:21:22 +0100
- To: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Cc: Scooter Morris <scooter@cgl.ucsf.edu>, www-svg@w3c.org
* Peter Sorotokin wrote: >Yes - and one important difference about Last Call period is that the WG is >required to review (and, I think, respond) to all comments made on this list. [...] A document receives review from the moment it is first published. Starting with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a Proposed Recommendation review, a Working Group MUST formally address any substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do so in a timely manner. [...] -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/process#doc-reviews Where formally addressing an issue means [...] In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an issue when it has sent a substantive response to the reviewer who raised the issue. A substantive response is expected to include rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). The adequacy of a response is measured against what a W3C reviewer would generally consider to be technically sound. [...] -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/process#formal-address Doing so is an entrance criterion for Last Call since February 2001, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/process.html#last-call [...] 5.2.2 Last Call Working Draft Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Last Call Working Draft, the Working Group must: 1. fulfill the relevant requirements of the Working Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements documents, or document which relevant requirements they have not fulfilled; 2. formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants, other Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the Working Draft. [...]
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:22:01 UTC